AuthorTopic: Gay Legislation (Read 7940 times)

Well, in my personal opinion I feel that a balance can be achieved between freedoms and needs. The private sector should be left alone; same with food. Education, fire departments, basic health coverage, electricity, water, and waste managent should be socialized in order to ensure the well being of the populace and so that the country wont turn out like corporate controlled US. *Shivers* Initially of course the above shouldn't be considered till after a stable society is formed. tbc...

No worries... I value your contribution no matter how many letters at a time you can enter.

For myself, socializing anything is a drastic step -- one that may well be inferior to other options. I tend to be pretty conservative on that score.

Some things, however, are required of a civil society. We institute governments to secure those things. I would definitely put water among those things. I'm inclined to put electricity among the basic services that ought to be provided to all as well.

The question that remains is how much water and how much electricity? I would agree that the citizens of a country had an inherent right to food as well, but I'm not sure you have the right to cake... even though I'm very fond of cake. Health care is a similar issue. Yes... some level of health care is the natural right of every citizen.

On each of these issues, even each aspect of each of these issues, you will find twenty contrary opinions to any proposal that might be suggested. It is a matter for discussion, for the democratic process. There are advocates for free market solutions to all of these problems, just as there are advocates for socializing both national resources and basic services. I lean toward the second of those options.

The entire matter is complicated by underlying reality. If there is no water, it does not matter that you ought to have the right to water. If there are no doctors, it does not matter that you ought to have health care. This is one of the reasons I advocate a ground-up approach to nationalism instead of a top-down approach. If you are a doctor, and if the Gay people have a right to health care, then begin providing it... now, where you are. If you are not a doctor, and if the Gay people still have a right to health care, then study to become one... begin at once. If there are services that the Gay people need, then they need them now, not at some point in the future when it is convenient and not after some state has been founded somewhere for them to emigrate to.

There are a whole host of services I think the Gay people have the obligation to provide to each other... because the Gay people have the right to receive them. I'm not so sure many people would be comfortable with the length of that list if someone like me were "in charge." Do you really want me deciding what you will and will not do for others? Fortunately, all I can do is suggest.

Ok I understand where your coming from. I am sorry if anything I said was a tad vague or abrupt. You see I am using a PSP to access the forum and can only enter so many letters at a time. Basically everything I post is typically condensed.Before I forget whats your take on socializing resources and services like water, electricity, and health care?

Any state can regulate its immigration and visa policy in the way it deems suitable. A mailtreatment of straight people on Gay soil would certainly give reason for international unease, but exclusion of them from Gay territory? This would be a rather unusual approach to the international law. No straight citizens, no oppression, no problems. After all, it's not like straight people don't have their own countries which are much larger in size and richer in opportunities [for them].

This would depend on what exactly one means with "exclude" and "wrong" towards whom. Are we talking about exclusion of straight tourists, straight season workers, straight residents, or straight citizens? Would it be wrong towards straight people to refuse entry to the Gay state, or would it be wrong towards Gay citizens to refuse entry to their family members? These are separate issues which imply very different consequences.

I would agree that indeed a general "no-straights-on-Gay-soil" policy would be rather counterproductive. Straight visitors shall be welcome, and straight specialists shall be always invited for work if needed. Gay citizens also should have the possibility to bring their immediate dependents with them - straight or Gay shall be no issue in such cases.

However, it should be clear, too, that all those friendly straight people will not become citizens of the republic -- they will remain guests living there as foreigners with a residency permission. The residency permission does not include such political privilegies as the right to vote or be elected into an office.

I feel it is wrong to exclude straights from the republic.Reasons:1 Can result in obvious aggresion from tolerant nations2 Can scare away possible immigrants who have gay supportive family and friends3 Gay parents would not immigrate in order to stay w/ children4 Uneeded tension in political alliances5 Over time can lead to mass hysteria and fear towards straight indidualsI might mention that a bicameral legislature of which one section is purely glbt can prevent the loss of gay control in govt.

Interesting points.

1 I think too much energy can be spent in fantasizing ways to minimize aggression. Any nation has the obligation to manage it's immigration policy in a manner consistent with the public good. It would be foolish to fail to exclude persons with criminal and antisocial backgrounds, regardless of their orientation.

2 Personally, I would never support an effort to exclude Gay supportive family members solely on the basis of their orientation. Gay supportive is Gay supportive. The issue of 'friends' is debatable. If these people are such good friends and so supportive, then I am quite happy to suggest that some Gay person adopt them as family members.

3 So long as these children are not criminals, there is no moral reason to prohibit a person from immigrating because they have children, or to prohibit the children from entering the country.

4 Tension? Oh, I think there would inevitably be at least tension. Tension is never 'needed,' but sometimes it has to be acknowledged before progress can be made in reducing it.

5 I've not noted any marked inclination toward this phenomenon in Gay people. To the contrary, the opposite seems to be the prevailing condition.

Your point is taken about the legislature. You are quite right.

I would add one other... time after time, whether it is a Gay bar that freely admits all customers regardless of orientation or a Gay sporting league that freely admits all participants regardless of orientation, the simple act of affirming the desirability of Gay participation is sufficient to provoke straight people from wanting to be involved.

This Straight vs Gay thing does not come from us. There is no point in trying to defuse it from our side of the equation: we do not have the power to remove situations that are not of our making.

I feel it is wrong to exclude straights from the republic.Reasons:1 Can result in obvious aggresion from tolerant nations2 Can scare away possible immigrants who have gay supportive family and friends3 Gay parents would not immigrate in order to stay w/ children4 Uneeded tension in political alliances5 Over time can lead to mass hysteria and fear towards straight indidualsI might mention that a bicameral legislature of which one section is purely glbt can prevent the loss of gay control in govt.

Marriage should be a simple matter of notification, received by any religious or governmental authorities. The only reason why governments are insisting on "licensing" marriages is their intention to grant significant privilegies to long-term stable relationships, as opposed to promisquity and casual mating.

"Legal marriage" offers solid benefits in most societies dominated by the three abrahamic religions. Married individuals usually pay lower income taxes, lower to no inheritance taxes, enjoy immigration privilegies and often are the only ones entitled to adopt children (or get professional assistance in making some). Thus it is only prudent that Gays living in such countries shall seek equal access to legal privilegies granted to "legally married" couples.

This does not mean, of course, that marriage is per se an institution worth of granting such extensive special rights, or, more accurately put, of denying those rights to not-married individuals.

There are a couple of genuine special rights which originate from the fact that two or more people are living under the same roof in a common houshold. It is only just that these people can present a joint tax declaration, provided they really have a joint account and the money is actually shared between them. It is also perfectly prudent that these domestic partners can inherit the dwelling where they live together before one of them dies. There is little reason, however, to grant special tax reliefs on large fortunes to persons who were "married" on paper only.

If I were in a position to set up the legislation for the Gay homeland, I would suggest a simple notification procedure. The clerk in the office looks up whether the individuals in question are not already married to someone else, takes the administrative fee and makes a notice in the civil registry. A few additional rights might be granted to them (e.g. the right not to testify against the partner in a criminal suit etc). For anything else, the legislation shall make no difference between married and non-married partners. A single man living with his dependent mother shall be treated no different from a "double-income no kids" married couple - in both cases, the shared income should be submitted to the fiscus for joint taxation.

I would suggest we make a difference between the three catogories of people who will somehow submit themselves to the legal system of the Gay State: "Citizens", "Affiliates" and "Permanent Residents".

Permanent Residents would be those who legally live on the territory controlled by the Gay State, independently of them being Gay or straight. These persons, being non-citizens, should have no rights with regard to the higher political institutions of the State (e.g. election rights for the parliament, government or courts of justice). In my view, however, they should be permitted to participate in communal politics, e.g. have the right to participate in elections to the city council or at least to form a "non-citizen board" which should have some competencies within the city council. Affiliation might be an option offered to Gays in Diaspora -- they would instantly become subjects to the Gay State, previous to the more difficult and demanding process of becoming a full citizen. Affiliates could have their elected local boards, which in cooperation with officials of the Gay State will take care of Gay politics in diasporic communities (and only there). These communal boards might even wish to create some informal networks in "opposition" to the State, but these networks should best remain informal, as far as the Gay State is concerned. Citizenship involves much more than a permanent residency or affiliation status. Every Gay should be entitled to become an affiliate or a permanent resident, even some straights would perfectly fit into the gay society as residents. But being a citizen implies that a person by free pieces is assuming the obligation to serve the state and, in case of necessity, to defend this state and its dependants. The more in duties first makes the person than eligible to the more in political rights. In my perception, the citizenship in the Gay State would be slightly different from the citizenship status in any "conventional" country. In any "conventional" state people are born into the citizenship "involuntarily" (and indeed, rather arbitrarily), such classical citizenship embraces all kinds of persons, independently from their willingness and readiness to affiliate with this state. I would propose that the Gay State establishes being Gay though as a necessary, but not a sufficient requirement. To become citizen, the affiliate of the Gay State should fullfill some additional criterions, e.g. learn some history and pollitics of Gay people, and substantially contribute to the further developement of the Gay State (military/civil service etc.).

I disagree slightly with Mogul on the matter of potential straight citizenship. I see no reason why such a thing cannot be earned. If a straight person is willing to assimilate into Gay culture there is no pressing reason to deny that person the benefits of being a full member of society.

Basically, my opposition to granting citizenship to straight individuals is founding in the fear that it would incite more unrest among straight residents than it would calm. As long as it is crystall clear for any straight permanent resident that he/she is not eligible for the [Gay] citizenship in principle, there is little cause for discord - straight is straight, and Gay is Gay. The very moment the first straight person will be permitted to "qualify" himself for the citizenship, there will be an uproar among the straight-born children of Gays, who would with full reason question why some straight people are apparently regarded more equal than others. The discussion in the society will then predictably lead to the eradication of every discrimination against straight people in the regulations for obtaining the citizenship, since all the parents would naturally wish their non-gay kids become citizens, too -- independently from their sexual orientation. And voila, in a couple of generations we will have the kind of a state which will mostly care about those who are "native" to its territory. We simply can't afford equal rights with regard on obtaining the citizenship status -- if at all, I solely can imagine that a straight person may be granted citizenship honoris causa, in a somewhat unusual step of acknowledgement for his/her exceptional merits. What kind of regulations do you have in mind, Feral?

The word 'homocracy' is one way of encapsulating what we propose, yes. I generally think of it in terms of 'self-governance' though.

Homocracy is, of course, the tongue-in-cheek way to describe the political ambition of the State in question. There are good ideological reasons why "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" choose to include "socialist" in its name, and why the "Islamic Republic of Iran" included "islamic" in its. But of course, "Dictatorship of the proletariat", "Rule of God" and "Gay self-rule" do say very little about the actual (technical) regulations within the State apparatus. Gay separatists already have given birth to a variety of Gay entities ranging from a "two-king constitutional monarchy", to a "parallel republic", thus we of course shall consider what kind of known government systems might serve us best. Whatever the name, there are a number of principles which seem to be very promising for good governance, a few to mention:

Separation of powers: legislative, executive and judicative shall be separated;

Checks and Ballances: mutual control of the powers;

Meritocracy: where necessary, special qualifications shall be required;

Majority rule: democratic structures among peers;

Accountability: the Government shall be kept accountable for its actions;

Subsidiarity: the superior authority shall not try to regulate issues which can be regulated by a subordinate authority or a citizen as well;

Now depending on the personal strength of the entity, and the tasks it is expected to fulfill, the governing structures can be more or less complicated. It is essential that a) every public official (from little immigration clerk to the president) can be removed in case of bad management, and b) there are instruments ensuring such incidents remain a rare necessity. An interesting solution is a "nobility republic", though I do not know whether this term would serve us well -- who shall determine the "nobility", after all? Probably the expression "qualified citizenship" might serve us better -- in the meaning, that one must first earn the citizenship of the Gay State, as Feral proposes.

How to does one "demonstrate" that they are gay? I suppose that could lead to some rather interesting imagery, however I imagine there are ways to decide based on other factors so not just anyone can claim gay to reap the rewards.

No, the immigration clerks will be not required to test the gayness of an applican first! The written declaration shall suffice, plus all the necessary additional steps aiming to increase political maturity of a would-be citizen, plus the necessary military/civil cervice. The practical duties wouldl make any "acting" by a straight person highly unprobable, and in case of a fraud the citizenship still may be revoked.

The word 'homocracy' is one way of encapsulating what we propose, yes. I generally think of it in terms of 'self-governance' though. There just aren't all that many straight people who could conceivably fall into the category of "self" when the word 'self' is being used to refer to Gays. There are no straight Gay people. I do not propose to create a government to be imposed upon straights -- they do a fine job of creating their own governments. Self-government works just fine for the straights and I am sure that it will work just fine for us as well. This is not to say that it will inevitably work well. Government rarely works well for anyone.

As for 'demonstrating' that one is Gay -- I am generally satisfied with a statement to that effect. It has been my experience that straight people are never shy about being straight (nor should they be). Should someone falsely claim to be Gay for some reason... that would be a simple matter of fraud. Fraud sometimes happens in immigration matters.

I disagree slightly with Mogul on the matter of potential straight citizenship. I see no reason why such a thing cannot be earned. If a straight person is willing to assimilate into Gay culture there is no pressing reason to deny that person the benefits of being a full member of society. I can imagine such a thing -- after all, being straight is hardly the most interesting thing about many of them -- but I do not pretend that there will be so very many straights willing to attempt it (or able to succeed) that this is more than an academic question.

Citizenship in the Gay state ought to be earned by everyone. That it is easier for a Gay person to be Gay than it is for a straight person is, I think, obvious. I would question the sense of a straight person that wished to assimilate into Gay society (just as I question the sense of the many Gays who purport to do the same thing in straight society). A lack of sense is not, I think, a reasonable disqualification for citizenship though.

Duel citizenship automatically granted to those who can demonstrate they are gay. Meaning those who are registered as "gay" (GLBT) through the Office of Citizenship Matters or what ever you want to call it are given duel citizenship. Should cover not only homeland residence but those who are dispersed around the globe as well.

How to does one "demonstrate" that they are gay? I suppose that could lead to some rather interesting imagery, however I imagine there are ways to decide based on other factors so not just anyone can claim gay to reap the rewards.

First and foremost for a Gay Nation would be equality of not just the gays but the straights that live there as well. Unlike the Straight World where exclusion of the gays is the norm, the Gay Nation should take care in including the straights, not excluding them.

There will of course be still a difference between "citizens," "permanent residents" and "tourists" as it is normal for every other country, too. Within each category, human beings shall of course be treated equally, whether they are Gay or straight. The only legal discrimination against straight individuals will be the limited right for obtaining a residency, and exclusion from the right to become citizen. Yes, I say it again: No straight person shall be granted citizenship, and only few straight individuals should be granted permanent residency permission on the territory of the Gay State. These two provisions might sound unjust, but we are not to set up a universal Utopia, we are simply to set up a Gay nation-state. For this purpose, restriction on immigration rights and citizenship are an unmovable requirement dictated by the purpose of the project: The Gay State would cease to be a Gay State if it would not discriminate between Gays and straights on matters of citizenship and residency.

If the Gay State is set up by Gay individuals voluntarily affiliating themselves with this state under condition of their homosexuality, there is no way that a straight persone becomes a citizen. Iit's not like children - Gay or straight - would be "born into" the Gay citizenship by the simple merit of their birth on its territory. No, all children will be born as foreign nationals who are granted a permanent residency until the age of 18 (or 21, let's be generous). Probably, most of those children will be eligible for a citizenship of countries where their parents do come from. Alternatively, one can imagine a contract which will grant these children the citizenship of a large nearby country - a modus, used e.g. by Vatican to deal with the issuel. No straight person shall become citizen, but also no straight person shall become stateless.

One must wonder if an all gay nation would start out on the right foot or the wrong foot? Would hundreds of years of persecution make us bias ourselves thus interpreting the best intended laws to exclude straights? Or would we have learned from being persecuted to be more open and tolerant of others and interpret those laws widely with rational acceptance that individuals are diverse and have individual needs which can not always fit some uniform definition?

Well, it's not like straights are really in danger to become a persecuted minority - no, Sir, even after the establishment of a Gay Nation they wouldl still remain a 95% majourity on this planet. In case of exclusion from the Gay Nation, they still would have a variety of opportunities to have a comfortable life somewhere else -- an option, which Gay individuals do not have. Now I am of course not pleading for the total social and economical exclusion of straights and denying them human rights -- no, I simply advocate spacial separation from them on a relatively small area, to which straight individuals should have only a very limited access. I do not think this will be particularly cruel to them, even in case their biological parents happen to be citizens of the Gay state.

We simply must abandon the outdated hetero-centrist idea that blood kinship automatically gives an individual some special rights on property or citizenship -- these "traditional" (=straight) views do not apply to the very nature of our people. I think that in a Gay society, each individual shall count for him/herself alone -- his heritage be of no importance. Thus, the sentence "I'm sorry, Sir/Mame, your son/daughter is straight and there is no cure" will be out of the question, since such a sentence would imply that the child is indeed somehow "belonging" to this particular Sir or Madam. The proper answer will be, in case of necessity, directed to the affected individual him/herself: "Sir/Mame, we are very sorry -- you are straight and thus not eligible for the citizenship of the Gay State. We advise you to apply for the citizenship of the XY country, your residency permission is still valid till DD.MM.YY."

The formation of any nation should be based on a constitution. There is a great draft that serves the purpose and would suit the needs of the Gay Nation with very few alterations. That would be the American Constitution which affords rights and freedoms for its people.

The American Constitution should of course be considered, among others, as a source of inspiration. But there are also many other sources of good legislation, most of them usually serving the needs of the particular people/state they were designed for. As far as rights of a person are concerned, the US constitution is certainly one of the better and can provide a number of good regulations. But for a number of central issues, it will be of little help - e.g. for provisions on "who is Gay" or for provisions on immigration rights. Clearly, a state whose citizenship is founded on voluntary affiliation of adult individuals needs very different laws than a state founding on biological procreation.

The other significant difference to any "conventional" country is that a large majority of Gays will live outside of the territory owned by the Gay State. This is an issue of tremendous importance, since not only questions of citizenship versus residency will need to be clarified, but also the relationship of the Gay State to the Diaspora. Not straights living on the territory of the Gay State shall receive our prior attention, but Gays living outside of the Gay State. Shall they be somehow eligible to obtain the citizenship, and if yes, under what kind of conditions? Shall there be a difference in legal status between citizens living inside and outside of the State? Shall the State generally be composed of equal citizens, or shall there be a sort of nobility? There is in principle no urgent necessity for such a state to be a democracy, since meritocracy and republic are viable options as well. For me, "homocracy" is a totally acceptable form of rule, as long as the non-gay people are given the basic human rights, too.

First and foremost for a Gay Nation would be equality of not just the gays but the straights that live there as well. Unlike the Straight World where exclusion of the gays is the norm, the Gay Nation should take care in including the straights, not excluding them.

"I'm sorry, Sir/Mame, your son/daughter is straight and there is no cure." Will be a reality in any grouping of even the 100% homo population that will of course breed within its population either through artificial or "natural" methods. Those gays who come from large families with several siblings know that straight and gay orientation is not a strict genetic certainty that other factors are at work. We may not know those factors completely but it is self evident that a couple of parents can (and do) produce straight and gay offspring. Diversity is the norm when it comes to human individuals, that diversity should be exalted and embraced. Unfortunately we humans are too self centered to actually see the wonders of our species.

Much to the chagrin of the gay population we find that being gay is a "sin" a "flaw" that parents just have to come to 'accept', and society just flat refuses to come to grips. Mostly based on religious beliefs of what is "good and proper" but also owning to the real nature of human sexuality which we can assume that more people are really bi-sexual than straight or gay and since our society through religious teachings has banned homosexuality any of the majority who even contemplate homosexuality frown upon themselves and usually take it out on the few out homosexuals in negative manner.

For a Gay nation that will be facing the same biological circumstances heterosexuals will be there - like it or not. Gay parents will produce straight offspring and we must insure that the anti-straight faction never gets a foothold or we will be facing the self same problems as the rest of the world, just flowing in the opposite direction. Most likely we will see a majority of bisexuals. That is the norm for human sexuality.

Parenthood although misconstrued to mean biological is far much more than just who's genetic material you are composed of. Ask adopted children, ask children of step parents who are raised, loved and provided for by a "stranger" in the genetic sense.

The word "parent" is correct. It is a sick society that places importance on the genetic rights of "parents" not the language itself.

The law as it is written is near to perfect when it describes parental rights and the usage of the words it uses.

It is the people who interpret the law that have preset biases toward "biological" when it comes to homosexual parental rights. We note that biological precedence is losing ground in step and foster parent cases of divorce. But then Being a step parent or a foster parent is far more acceptable and considered "normal" by the majority of society who now accept divorce as proper behavior. Throw a homosexual into the mix and the bias is not over parent but over sexuality. Although those with the bias will carefully couch their negative feelings in the meaning of certain words like "Parent" to mean biological, they are in reality targeting the sexual orientation, not the parent.

The same thing applies to the term "spouse" Spouse is an excellent word to apply to my partner in life. He serves and fulfills that position in my life to the fullest degree. It is society and its skewed senses that demand that I call my spouse a domestic partner.

We find in the 'modern world' that folk are ok with "civil unions", "domestic partnership" "Holy unions" and any other title to a civil union between two men or two women. Their problem starts when we use the word "Marriage" to define what we have as partner in life.

Again I stress the words are not the problem. It is those who interpret those words and who choose to define those words to meet their narrow views of what is and is not correct.

No matter what words you do use in the law, the definition by the narrow minded will continue to be exclusionary. The problem is People, not words or laws.

The formation of any nation should be based on a constitution. There is a great draft that serves the purpose and would suit the needs of the Gay Nation with very few alterations. That would be the American Constitution which affords rights and freedoms for its people. Even the Amendments (thus far) are perfect in every way.

The problem is not the document itself, it is the way the document is interpreted, and that is what law enforcement and law makers do, they interpret that piece of paper, usually with individual bias for their particular brand of faith or belief in what "utopia" is or should be.

We do not face problems with law, we face problems with people and how they will perceive that law and interpret that law. No matter what words you use to define that law, to make that law - it will ultimately be the society and the people who will bend the law to read as they want it to read, to reflect their bias.

One must wonder if an all gay nation would start out on the right foot or the wrong foot? Would hundreds of years of persecution make us bias ourselves thus interpreting the best intended laws to exclude straights? Or would we have learned from being persecuted to be more open and tolerant of others and interpret those laws widely with rational acceptance that individuals are diverse and have individual needs which can not always fit some uniform definition?

Ultimately we are looking at a society, not the laws, but the people and their sense of place in the scheme of things.

It would be convenient if the resulting legislation was simple and compact. Unfortunately, the gay people have only recently begun exploring what sorts of relationships they value. There are others worth institutionalizing that have not even been imagined yet.

Indeed, it seems that much of the harm derives from too much of the legislation, and not from the lack of same. In most "civillized" countries there are all kinds of laws regulating the family life of citizens, for example:

income tax benefits, or extra payments connected to the marital status;

inheritance tax reliefs for surviving spouse, children and other close relatives;

custody rights of parents on children (and deprivation of personal rights of children);

compulsory provision of alimony to current and former spouses, and to first-grade relatives;

visiting rights in hospital, discriminating in favour of the biological family and against other people;

automatical transfer of property to relatives upon person's death, in case there is no will left -- or often against the will of the deceased person;

automatical inclusion of spouses and children into social and medical aid, while denying it to other persons;

protection of housing rights for surviving spouses/children of a deceased "head of the household", while denying such rights to other persons who used to live in the same household;

denial of a residency to non-citizens, while granting special rights to spouses and children/parents of a citizen or a permanent resident;

The usual understanding of essential legal categories is designed to reflect realities of the straight society founding on blood kinship and DNA: "children and parents" means "biological children and parents", "relatives" means "blood relatives" and "spouse" means "opposite-sex spouse". The legislations in question are constructed to preserve the man-woman-children-parents family and to ensure the transfer of property within the [biological] family -- wholly in accordance with the heterosexual tradition of genetic competition. Some might imply that all the benefits for the spouses and the children were founding on the "natural" affection among spouses or parents and children -- but this is not the case (at least in the legislations I am familiar with). For example, in Germany it is legally not possible to deprive one's children or first-grade relatives of their "statutory share" of the inheritance -- unless they attempted to murder one and proved thus "unworthy to inherit". One can muse about the sense of such legal provisions in the modern heterosexual society, but this is no topic in our discussion.

Rather, we must realize the heterosexual nature of many of such legal provisions and abandon them alltogether. Who needs special hospital visiting rights when there no restrictions on them anyway? Who needs privileged medical and social insurances for spouses, when all citizens/residents enjoy government-provided medical and social insurances anyway? Equally, who needs provisions for alimony payments to [biological] children, when the government provides minimum support for all underage residents anyway? It would be most certainly reasonable to decouple any tax benefits or governmental support from the "marital status" of individuals, or the number of children they have bred. Instead, each person shall be ragarded individually and it shall be left to him/her to decide on what kind of housing/working engagements he/she decisedes to engage. In a society where individuals are not pressed into social structures causing economic dependencies, there is no particular need to regulate such [non-existent] economic dependencies.

There will be certainly some advanced issues to be addressed, for example when one person provides another person's well-being (home nursing, childe care), or when 2 or more individuals build their home by themselves, thus investing unquanified amount of work into this joint property etc. But even in such cases, it is not unreasonable that in absence of any legal provisions prescribed by the state, the individuals involved would not hesitate to draft suitable contracts/agreements by themselves. The "worst case" in any society is that in absence of a legislation, some customary law is created by courts founding on the "percepted justice".

Well, this depends upon the definition of provisions for citizenship. It would be indeed foolish and unjust to deny equal civil rights to straight people living in a gay society just because they are straight; but it is also clear that in a state where only gay individuals can become citizens, straight individuals will be automatically deprived of all political rights connected to the citizenship of such a state. But this will be the issue of non-equal treatment of non-citizens in comparison to citizens -- thus an entirely different topic...

What seems particularly interesting to me are the non-fiscal aspects of relationships among individuals -- a highly neglected area of legislation. We should pay much more attention to ethical aspects of a social and political life -- as opposed to economic entanglements we are used to from the traditional straight societies. While we can confidently exempt wealthy individuals from any financial responcibility for their former partners, we can establishe strict rules on ethical obligations for "partners", "swear brothers" or "mentor-apprentice" relationships. For example, we could make it a punishable crime to betray / defame / deny assistance / abandon one's mentor or apprentice or a swear brother, or impose particular duties on individuals engaged in such relationships. A mentor can be obligued to provide quality education to the apprentice, a "swear brother" can be obligued to assist with housing building etc. In turn, "swear brothers" should have the guaranteed right to join the same military unit in case they are drawn to the compulsory military service by the government. An apprentice must have the right to leave his other obligations to assist his mentor in case of necessity, e.g. he must get vacation from the military service in case his mentor is about to die etc.

For example, what is with such a simple matter as visiting rights in hospital? Of course any friend and partner shall have the right to come for a visit, but what if the person is unconscious and can't confirm the visitor is really a friend and not a total stranger?

There are a host of privileges that have been granted to membership in a heterosexual "family." Most of these are quite small matters, except for when you find yourself unreasonably denied the privilege -- then it is hardly small. It is important that the law be neutral in its application. What applies to gay people must apply equally to straight people. The legal basis for a great many relationships must be considered. It would be convenient if the resulting legislation was simple and compact. Unfortunately, the gay people have only recently begun exploring what sorts of relationships they value. There are others worth institutionalizing that have not even been imagined yet.

Naturally, in terms of visiting rights in hospitals, there is more than one functional strategy. Should I have to attend to my husband in a hospital, I can certainly announce that I am this man's husband (or partner); I can wave the bulky sheaf of legal documents that have been drafted to secure these rights in other ways (with the implicit threat of a law suit), or I can just say "I am this man's brother" (something which is quite untrue, but is guaranteed to go unchallenged in nearly all circumstances).

Amateurs as we are in so many areas, currently Gay Nationalism has nothing better to come up with. Like in every nascent legal system, the "founding fathers" give a start of the basic principles on what is "good" and what is "evil" and create a draft of legislation. We will certainly not be able to create a full set of consistent law, but we should have the ambition to consider how "gay legislation" could differ from the "straight legislation". Hummarabi did not have Master degree in Roman Law either.

The immigrants from various countries will be probably not much differe in their perception of the law. Certainly there are differences in habits and morals, but not every aspect of behaviour is significant from the legal viewpoint. Especially in society with mixed cultural background, there must be a clear legal framework established - it would be not really possible to rely on common sense there. The newcomers will have to adopt themselves into existing framework of rules before they can influence them. And who says "westerners" can't learn? We can adopt the confucianism as well, to a certain degree.

Quote from: Feral

There is some question as to whether such relationships require government involvement at all. [..] Depending on the laws involved, this is a matter of some importance or great importance.

For example, what is with such a simple matter as visiting rights in hospital? Of course any friend and partner shall have the right to come for a visit, but what if the person is unconscious and can't confirm the visitor is really a friend and not a total stranger? In a gay village, any legislation on such issues would appear absurd, but in a large city this issue is not entirely artificial. Another example of greate importance, is the integration of new citizens. Would it be sensible to let them just move in and go on at the best of their abilities, or would it be wise to allocate them into sub-communities to undergo basic socialization first? It seems not entirely wild to me that in their first 2 years in their new homeland the newcomers would attend an army-like corps where they would learn language, history, legal system and learn how to socialize with other men. What sounds strange at first to a NY city slicker, would be totally understandable for a guy who has just has escaped Zimbabwe and first needs a therapy to re-gain self-cosciousness and trust in people. The guy from NY would, in turn, learn that there are also other skills than simple money-earning which are of importance. We must examine all such aspects more closely.